Yes, we are stupid.

We assumed that the stories we were told about WMDs pre-invasion were based on fact, not fiction. That was stupid.

We assumed that this administration would properly plan for the post-invasion Iraq. That was stupid.

We assumed that this administration would make every effort to bring our best and brightest to bear on this difficult task. That was stupid.

We assumed that this adminstration would do everything in its power to ensure that our troops were properly armed and protected. That was stupid.

We thought that after repeatedly being proven wrong about the war in Iraq, the war cheerleader pundits would lose all credibility and shamefully go away. That was stupid.

We thought that after four years of mistakes, our President would finally put his country ahead of his political legacy and start removing us from the mess he created. That was stupid.

So, yes, we are stupid. What makes us different from you is that we know we're stupid. You keep walking around like you have a clue what's going on. You've got a higher level of stupidity: too stupid to know you're stupid.

Liberals... sheer idiots!

When will the American people wake up and recognize the Liberal cancer that's eating away and destroying this nation? ! ! !

AAR

This is advocating the violent overthrow of the United States government and is on the face of it - a felony.

So drive by steve - are you joining in this advocating the overthrow of the United States government by the military?

Steve,

Well, it is rather stupid to think there was any deception in the reasons for liberating Iraq...

We thought that after four years of mistakes, our President would finally put his country ahead of his political legacy and start removing us from the mess he created. That was stupid.

It is stupid to think that "removing us from the mess" will make things better. The Democrats forced Ford to remove us from the mess of Vietnam, resulting in the downfall of the South, the "bloodbath" that the anti-war crowd predicted would not happen, the perilous exodus of the boat people, the removal of tens of thousands to "re-education camps" never to return, and eventually contributing to the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the resulting killing fields in Cambodia. The Democrats under Clinton removed us from the mess of Somalia, which for most of the time afterwards has experienced either utter chaos or brutal rule by various islamist elements. Our retreat after the Black Hawk Down episode also convinced Bin Laden that "those Americans are weak. Hit them once, and they run away."

It's stupid not to learn the lessons of history. As Bush's recent speech shows, he has learned them better than some give him credit for.

It is much more stupid that after voting to authorize invading Iraq, the Democrat party worked so diligently at undermining the effort.

As I just posted on my own little blog, "Exit Strategy, What Is It Good For?" ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!!

The far left is getting desperate in calling for General Pace to "Relieve Bush of his Command." Moonbats making that call have watched the Caine Mutiny too many times.

I vote "Just Stupid", which is winning 6 to 0 at this point. (Thanks SteveGA for not only voting Just Stupid, but proudly displaying it also. BTW, does it hurt your throat when you regurgitate so many Democratic talking points at once? Just wondering.)

i am not sure you understand what the term 'talking point' means. Just because someone brings something up that is used as a talking point of a party doesn't mean that you can just point and say "thats a talking point" and ten you win. You have to actually come up with a coherent argument against it. But I guess you can't...

Reading Mr. Lewis' bio I wonder why anyone would take him seriously. Reading the comments on the HuffPo site, I get the impression that very few do. That's reassuring because, after all, his argument is pretty goofy. It rates right up there with Dick Cheney claiming the VP is not a member of the executive branch, lol!

Martin Lewis is probably not this comedian's real name, is it?

You have to actually come up with a coherent argument against it. But I guess you can't...

No you don't, liberalT; SteveGAY's talking points were debated long ago, before your sorry ass started polluting this blog. Besides, SteveGAY is a hit-and-run troll; he comments, and rarely, if ever, addresses refutations to his crap.

You, liberalT, and the rest of the trolls come here for one purpose--to spew your Bush-hatred. Most of us GOP'ers have acknowledged errors/mistakes made by our president, and have suggested solutions to fix them. You and the rest of the troll pukes offer no ideas or solutions; you just want to play "gotcha." Most of us are tired of it. Plus, you have repeatedly insulted Matt and Mark, and they've let you stay. I'd have banned you in a nanosecond.

I'd really love to meet some of you troll punks face-to-face, just to see what a miserable lot you are. What a bunch of losers...

Wow, the surge must really be working!!

Lets see If I understand this, the left, which constantly whines and frets about supposed violations of the constitution and the threat of Evil King George stealing elections and placing himself permanently in charge of the US - Now endorses the idea of General Pace violating the constitution, over-riding the results of an election and placing himself in charge of the US?

Who writes this stuff?

Bigfoot,

I question your view of history. Please look back to the Somalia debacle. First off, Bush is the one that sent troops there. After the "Blackhawk Down" incident, Republicans were screaming in Congress how the US should not be involved in nation building. Hence, the Republicans questioned the President during a time or war. What in fact many on this site have accused the "kooks" on the left of being traitors for doing. Hypocrites! As the Republicans in Congress questioned the Commander in Chief, or “Commander Guy“ if you want to quote Bush, public support faded and troops were pulled.

Mark,

Finding one person, or even a group, who endorse these ideas and trying to use it to label the entire left is one of the most elementary logic fallacies. That would be like me quoting David Duke and labeling all Conservatives racist. Silly, I know. But hey good try, I understand that the last year and a half has been hard on you. Probably still a bit depressed about being flat wrong about the 2006 elections are you?

Peace, Gaijin

keef, you do realize that this topic is all about painting an entire group (in this case, lefties) as stupid because of some goofy comments one guy with no meaningful credentials said, right? If so, you must also realize that showing up under the nom-de-plume "Ted Nugent '08" kinda blows the argument out of the water, right?

Then again, I don't expect much else from you -- you're the designated attack dog, and you make no bones about it. You're honest in that respect. Mark is a different story. A couple of days ago Mark made an appeal for more comity, less vitriol. But ever since then he seems intent to prove the opposite. What's up with that?

The fact is, there are goofballs on both fringes. And anytime a goofball opens his or her mouth doesn't mean that anyone else anywhere close to them on the political spectrum agrees with them. And if we don't get that through our collective heads, any level of comity will remain elusive.

Rico,
For a while this summer it looked like people on this blog were starting to listen to each other. There were several posts which didn't even contain any insults. I hate to see it go the other way. Especially now, when our country needs answers more than insults.

This is why it scares us when so called "liberals" advocate taking away our guns.

This would leave us with President Dick Cheney, you have got to be kidding me. This thought alone probably saves Bush from impeachment for his arguably high crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution; authorizing wiretapping of U.S. citizens without a warrant.

Casper & Rico, with all due respect, both of you tend to be a bit liberal (that's okay, since I like and respect you both) and more often than not, you tend to "straddle fences" on certain topics.

Comity is great Rico, if both parties agree to disagree, however, this is my second year here at B4B, and with the influx from the kook fringe constantly attacking our President, our Military and our Country, what would you like us to do....nothing?

Then we see posts such as steveGA's at the top of this thread, and WTF? He admits he's stupid, so why even post here if he knows he'll be drug through the muck?

You guys always amaze us. Infighting may be fun but perhaps it's just time to accept that someone opened the atlas in the wrong place and move back to the real war in Waziristan, just as we are now doing. In the meantime, it is heart breaking seeing you loose incredibly brave people.

London

Apparently sarcasm is dead on this blog. Oh well, it was stupid of me to think it wasn't.

The larger point, however, is pretty clear. We, the American people, have made numerous mistakes over the last few years, not the least of which was entrusting our nation's security to a bunch of incompetent political hacks.

Democrats, specifically the 'centrist' Democrats, have been stupid to continue to believe that Bush administration is interested in compromising, or even interested in our nation's security at all. By now, its quite clear that the administration is only concerned with passing the buck: pushing the Iraq problem onto the next administration and blaming the inevitable problems on them.

You, the numerous war cheerleaders, are stupid in continuing to believe you know what's best for Iraq or our country, after consistently and repeatedly being proven wrong.

Your followers, (keefer/ Ted Nugent, I'm looking at you) are stupid for continuing to believe the garbage that the cheerleaders spew.

By the way, keefer/Ted Nugent, I would gladly address any substantive point you make. However, you don't actually make any, do you? Calling me SteveGAY is great fun, I'm sure, but that's about all you do. I'm consistently amazed that you claim to be a middle-aged man. I had more wit and wisdom at the age of 12 than you appear to at the age of 50.

"more often than not, you tend to "straddle fences" on certain topics."

I don't see myself straddling fences as much as I try to look at all sides of an issue. And to be honest, there are a lot of issues I haven't made up my mind on. That doesn't mean I don't understand them, I just don't like the options that have presented up to this point.

This is like walking into a war zone ! Perhaps someone could explain to us simple folks why it should be inconsistent with conservatism (I am conservative myself)to raise the possibility that the commander in chief might be fighting the wrong war. If Lincoln had invaded Canada would it have been wrong for Republicans to sugggest a change of direction ? I always thought that it was conservatives who represented integrity and realism.

From your friends - London, England

navydad, comity does not mean you can't disagree. Comity doesn't even mean dispassion. Comity means trying to avoid provoking mindless vitriol and/or responding in kind when mindless vitriol is evoked by others.

That may be too nebulous. So let me offer a few guidelines:

1. Don't overly generalize. If someone says something stupid, tell them (or point out to others that) they said something stupid. Don't assume that everyone anywhere close to them on the political spectrum agrees. This topic is a perfect example.

2. Avoid ad-hominem arguments. Attack what the person says, not the person. If they fail to distinguish between the two, too bad for them. But at least you maintain the moral high ground. Not only that, but you keep the discussion moving forward, not backward.

3. On almost all issues, the concept of a "fence" is a false intellectual construct. It's not like there's only two sides with the only alternative being to sit on it. There is a tendency, however, for the two parties to tend to polarize opinion. And anyone that resists that polarization is considered a fence-sitter. But that doesn't really represent the underlying reality, that's just politics. To be sure, there are many that are willing to be dictated to by their party or some other special interest group -- presumably because it's easier than thinking for themselves. That may be great for the party or special interest group, but not necessarily the country. I firmly believe that an effective democracy requires an informed electorate, not a compliant one, not one filled with propaganda from source or another. And that requires a significant number of said electorate to actually think for themselves. So that's what I try to do -- to get people to think. I don't really care who agrees with me. In fact, I'd rather they didn't if the only reason is that I say it well.

As for how to respond to the kook fringe, why respond at all? That's one of my other firm beliefs: people understand goofiness for what it is. Every once in a while I'll take one of them on if I think I can clearly expose their goofiness for what it is. I spend almost as much time trolling lefty sites as I do righty ones, so I kinda know which talking points have an element of truth to them and which ones are full of it. That's true of the right, too. Both sides are full of contradictions and double-standards. But I also believe that there are many people on both sides that actually do put the welfare of the country above their ideology. At least they want to.

"trying to avoid provoking mindless vitriol and/or responding in kind when mindless vitriol is evoked by others"

Impossible to ignore Rico. Take a very close look at the way each of the liberals in this thread have uniquely included bits and pieces of soft-core vitriol, simply to "get in a dig." Now this
is not "comity" as you've defined, no, it is hatred at a level that will not allow the fringe to carry on a dialog without at least one "high-five, knee-slappin jab at our Pres., his Admin., our Military or whomever (is that "who" or "whom") else they disagree with. They're compelled.

"As for how to respond to the kook fringe, why respond at all?"

I completely agree! However, there are those that post here, that if you watch closely, follow a pattern of mental instabilty that one finds in many mental institutions. Now you and I know the phrase "When arguing with a fool, be careful....", and sometimes, we all fall into this trap, but it is human nature to defend one's beliefs. This isn't a generalization at all. When a person is complelled to attack another person, because he/she has a "D" or an "R" next to their name, they should seek help, and when you read many kook fringe posts, you might agree that these people either live under a rock or within the confines of an institution, where they are exposed to little if any of the realities in the world.

BTW, OT, but I unloaded my F-250 diesel. It never got better than 15mpg, and the fuel alone was making the hair on the back of my neck stand up!!

My old F-250 has 435K on it and still get 18-20mpg!!

I'm thinking about a Tundra or new Frontier. Both get much better mileage.

And if we don't get that through our collective heads, any level of comity will remain elusive.

Um, Rico, I've only really paid attention to politics since Election 2000, and, IMHO, the left side has had far more to do with the lack of comity than the right side has. When a Pelosi or a Reid says, "We need bipartisan solutions," I hear, "Do it our way, and we'll work with you." I've seen my side bend over backwards, trying to get along with the other side, only to be crapped on incessantly.

Do you think I like being the "attack dog?" Hell, at any time, one of these pukes could show up here in suburban MD, lookin' to rearrange my teeth. But I'm not gonna sit here and ignore the bullcrap--regurgitated bullcrap--spewed by these lemmings. That would be cowardly.

The bottom line is: we're not gonna see comity/bipartisanship for a long time, if ever, in this country, as long as there's a Reid or Pelosi runnin' things. Just my two cents, or, as liberalTHC would write: "Just my to scents..."

Reading Mr. Lewis' bio I wonder why anyone would take him seriously.

I didn't have to read his bio.

btw, in what context did Cheney state that?

navydad: Impossible to ignore Rico. Take a very close look at the way each of the liberals in this thread have uniquely included bits and pieces of soft-core vitriol, simply to "get in a dig." Now this is not "comity" as you've defined, no...

I didn't say it was.

it is hatred at a level that will not allow the fringe to carry on a dialog without at least one "high-five, knee-slappin jab at our Pres., his Admin., our Military or whomever (is that "who" or "whom") else they disagree with. They're compelled.

Okay fine. Go ahead and point out the obvious. But don't feel likewise compelled to reduce yourself to their level. That's my opinion anyway. To the extent that you do, I'd say you sacrifice your own credibility. And that is exactly what many of them want. They just want to drive by and stir up the hornets. I feel no compulsion to oblige them in that endeavor. You may. And that's your prerogative. But that's not likely to lead to comity. And I, myself, completely reject the notion that we have to be just as bad as, or worse than, them.